Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? (v3)

Why shouldnt the parents make the decision? The kid is under 18 and living in your house, she's under your rules... Why is that so unreasonable?

 

Well, I'd suspect the fact it's hardly the parents who need live with the consequences might be a mitigating factor, n'est ce-pas?

E_S

 

Exactly what Ender_Sai said. It doesn't affect the parents at all. And it's deciding the entire life for that kid. Do you think a parent has the right to decide the rest of their child's life? If so I'm sure you support arranged marragies. That would only be consistent, right?

 

Well yeah - parents make the decisions with regards to other medical procedures (other matters that are certainly life long decisions).

 

I can understand why you chose that given the circumstances, but did you consider an adoption by any chance?

No. Neither of us feel it's an appropriate burden to force a woman to carry, medically, emotionally, or financially, especially not out of deference to a cause both of us feel is actively immoral (the anti-abortion movement). Neither of us are all that keen on the adoption or foster care system, either, and frankly, there are too damn many kids in the world to begin with.

Well yeah - parents make the decisions with regards to other medical procedures (other matters that are certainly life long decisions).

The nature of this decision is unique. A parent who forces a child to carry a pregnancy to term also forces that child to accept responsibility for the baby's well-being long after the child will be a legal adult. You can't normally assume a debt and put it in the name of a child, and in essence responsibility for the life of another human being is the biggest debt you put on someone.

 

All decisions are unique.

I believe it is a parents job to get their child to accept responsibility for their actions; even when it is difficult to do so or when doing so has life long consequences. In fact, in matters of long term consequences, would it not be better for one's guardian to help make these decisions wisely? Afterall, whether keeping the child, giving it up for adoption or having an abortion, the choice has long term consequences no matter how you slice it.

 

Could we at least have some people with personel expierences put some input in here? Its not as cut and dry as the left OR the right is making it and its probably the most nuanced issue or our times. And all that said anyone thats gonna go cheerleading if Roe or Lawrence does get overturned deserves a well placed punch to the face - preferably by an underage rape victim with her whole life ahead of her.

 

I've had personal experience and I'm confused about the issue.

I tend to think that abortion is a woman's choice, but at the same time dislike the dehuminisation of the fetus that goes on so people can feel good about it.

I have personal experience and I feel bad about it, quite often in fact.

 

"No. Neither of us feel it's an appropriate burden to force a woman to carry, medically, emotionally, or financially, especially not out of deference to a cause both of us feel is actively immoral (the anti-abortion movement). Neither of us are all that keen on the adoption or foster care system, either, and frankly, there are too damn many kids in the world to begin with."

We would call it the "Pro Life" movement... However, on a side note, Id like to thank you for at least considering an adoption.

 

I believe it is a parents job to get their child to accept responsibility for their actions; even when it is difficult to do so or when doing so has life long consequences.

First of all, I don't believe that you have the right to impose that belief on a pregnant teenager you don't even know.

Second of all, in virtually all situations involving pregnant teens, abortion is the most responsible course of action.

We would call it the "Pro Life" movement.

I know you would, but I don't feel that's appropriate. In terms of actual practice and the practical effects of your political position, our side is effectively anti-sex and pro-poverty, which is about the least "pro-life" position I can think of. In my opinion, a truly pro-life position would take into account quality of life issues.

 

Loopster

Look, it is not like I feel good about believing that a fertilized egg is not a human life, I just see it as the only logical stance. Emotionally I don't like it, but I just see it as what is.

Also, just because a fertilized egg may not be a human life does not mean it is not valuable. Unlike anything else in the world, it (probably) will become a human life, and that does mean a lot. It just does not mean that it currently is a human life in my book.

 

In fact, in matters of long term consequences, would it not be better for one's guardian to help make these decisions wisely?

What wise? If someone doesn't want to have a baby how is it wise to make them have one? The parent doesn't know best in this situation because they don't know what's going on in the child's brain; they don't know if their child is reading to take care of a child. Only the person having the baby knows that.

 

What's the politically correct word for abortion these days?
Selective reduction or birth control?

 

How to annoy a liberal:
1) Work hard
2) Get rich
3) Be happy

How to annoy a conservative:
1) Ask for change
2) Provide a logical reason
3) Watch them go crazy

 

I'm having trouble figuring this out, but what did that do to improve discourse, Shredder?

 

I don't know, but I know that guy was a sock because I've seen that sig before. And it annoyed the hell out of me.

 

Stick to abortion, not partisan bickering.


This mini-mod moment has been brought to you by FIDo, bringer of sunshine since 2001.

 

By the way, you're not a mod.

 

Yes, hence the disclaimer.

 

As a parent, I hope you will impose these beliefs on your child.

 

Shred, FIDo is 100% correct in his asking for partisan stupidity to be dropped from discussion and I support what he said 100%.

E_S

 

We impose our beliefs on others every single day, don't feed us that nonsense.

Killing an unborn child is responsible? I think that's the LEAST responsible act in a series of irresponsible acts by the would-be parents. Being too frickin stupid to protect themselves is the first case of irresponsibility. But besides that I think it's screwed up that you can make the case that it's better to not exist than it is to exist with parents that don't want you, assuming that's the point you were trying to make in terms of responsibility. Let's assume for a second that that would be the case, putting the baby up for adoption is still the most responsible course of action, at the very least let the baby have a chance at a happy life. So why don't more people do it? LAZINESS. In reality people don't want to go through the hassle of putting their baby up for adoption, plus they know that when that baby is born and they see it's face the whole game changes and all of a sudden this faceless nameless thing in their bodies becomes "their child".

If you value your own independence, finances, and freedom more than you do your future child, than maybe in your skewed sense of morality abortion is the most responsible course of action.

 

So why don't more people do it? LAZINESS.

What about the associated dangers of pregnancy and child birth ?

Ok, we do live in the 21st Century century, but still to this day plenty of women die in labour. What is your opinion on that? (and please don't say it's their fault for getting pregnant - I'm asking you what do after you become pregnant).

 

But who honestly has an abortion because they're afraid of the dangers of pregnancy? I've NEVER heard anyone say "I'm going to have an abortion because I'm scared of something happening during the pregnancy". I just don't think that's realistic, it's an irrational fear until the doctor says otherwise. But if there is a real risk of permanent harm or death, get an abortion.

 

You haven't addressed my point.

Your arguement was that people who get pregnant by accident, and don't want the child should have the baby then give it up for adoption. You also stated that more people don't do that because they are lazy.

I'm countering that saying that there is a huge risk associated with pregnancy and child birth that the women need not expose herself too. Furthermore there is the long term damage to their bodies, associated time off work (which might not be an option - although this is a minor point).

So, I'm argueing that they are not lazy, they just don't want to put themselves at unnecessary risk.




Furthermore, on a sort of unrelated point - you argue that they should give the unborn "child" should be given the chance of life with an adoptive family. Who is to say that the child will be better off in an adoptive family in the long term ? (especially psychologically coping with knowing they were an unwanted child).

[don't answer the above point, I'm just putting my ideas on paper]

I don't typically enter into prolife/prochoice debates because there is no common ground, or conclusions that both sides would agree too (ie it's a pointless debate). Ultimately there is nothing "wrong" with abortion because it isn't against the law, so there really is no debate to be had. (I realise that is flawed, but you can understand why I don't post here).



I'm only posting to highlight the unnecessary risk associated with pregnancy.








oh, here's a scenario for you. Say for example a women already has a child, then accidentally becomes pregnant again (and really doesn't want another child). Can you understand why she might abort rather than run the risk of a complication pregnancy and possible death, leaving the first child an orphan?